You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
“Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer yes or no.”— Traditional
Psychic masochists are neurotics who unconsciously devote a great deal of productive intelligence to the achievement of an unproductive end: the proof that everyone is “mean”, “unjust”, “inconsiderate” to that pitiful victim, the masochist himself. At the same time the masochist is pursuing two other aims, both unconscious, although of different depths of repression. The most deeply repressed tendency is always to be on the receiving end, to be mentally mistreated, rejected, kicked around. On a more superficial level is the search for an alibi to be presented to the inner conscience, which objects to the unconscious libidinous gain derived from the “pleasure in displeasure” pattern. This second defensive aim is fulfilled by unconsciously maneuvering the opponent into an untenable position; no matter what he does, the result is an “injustice” to which the self-created victim reacts with a furious counterattack.
This inability on the part of the adversary to avoid being unjust is the ideal situation for the psychic masochist. If his unconscious tactics fail to bring about the optimum result, he will settle for the misinterpretation of harmless actions. The misinterpreter is the “amateur”, and the more skilled trapper, the “professional” psychic masochist, so to speak.
The ideal situation for the psychic masochist can be compared with the traditional trap sprung by the sly lawyer in cross-examination. By asking the witness whether he has “stopped beating his wife”, and limiting his answer to a “yes” or a “no”, the lawyer leaves him no way to escape from self-incrimination. Whatever his answer, he is damned; the “yes” is an admission that he has beaten his wife in the past, the “no” an admission that he still beats her in the present.
Recently an engineer consulted me because the wives of his two best friends had been in analysis with me and were now—in his estimation—“remarkably changed.” Therefore, he co